From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malec v. Trustees of Boston College

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jul 8, 2002
208 F.R.D. 23 (D. Mass. 2002)

Summary

noting that "the better practice is for the deposition to go forward to determine how much is able to be covered in the seven hours and, then, if additional time is needed, for counsel to stipulate to extend the deposition for a specific additional time period" or, if necessary, seek court intervention

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Cnty. of San Diego

Opinion

         On defendant's motion for leave to extend deposition of plaintiff, the District Court, Collings, United States Magistrate Judge, held that defendants' motion seeking to depose plaintiff for fourteen hours over two days, more than twice the limit of seven hours in one day contained in civil procedure rule, would not be granted in advance of the deposition; rather, deposition would go forward go forward for seven hours during one day, and court would intervene only if parties could not reach stipulation as to additional time needed to complete deposition.

         Motion pretermitted.

         Paul F. Wood, Law Office of Paul F. Wood, Boston, MA, for Nicole Malec, plaintiff.

          Miriam J. McKendall, Boston, MA, for Trustees of Boston, Yoshio Saito defendants.


          MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF (# 21)

          COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Defendants' counsel has filed a Motion for Leave to Extend Deposition of Plaintiff (# 21) seeking Court authorization to depose the plaintiff for fourteen hours over two days, more than twice the limit of seven hours in one day contained in Rule 30(d)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. The motion has been filed before the deposition has commenced and before any testimony has been taken. The asserted reasons for the request are that there are three claims in the case, one of which is against both defendants, and there are a significant number items about which there is a need for testimony.

          Obviously, the Court will allow more than seven hours " if needed for a fair examination of the plaintiff." Rule 30(d)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. However, the better practice is for the deposition to go forward to determine how much is able to be covered in the seven hours and, then, if additional time is needed, for counsel to stipulate to extend the deposition for a specific additional time period. If the parties cannot reach a stipulation, then Court intervention may be sought. Id.

          Accordingly, the deposition shall go forward for seven hours during one day. At the conclusion of the seven hours, if counsel for the defendants needs more time, he/she shall inform plaintiff's counsel of that fact and counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to reach a stipulation as to the additional time which will be needed to complete the deposition. Id. If agreement cannot be reached, defendants' counsel may notify the Court in writing of that fact, the amount of additional time which is needed, and the reasons therefor. Counsel for the plaintiff may respond within fourteen (14) days and the Court will rule on the Motion for Leave to Extend Deposition of Plaintiff (# 21). In the meantime, the motion is pretermitted.


Summaries of

Malec v. Trustees of Boston College

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jul 8, 2002
208 F.R.D. 23 (D. Mass. 2002)

noting that "the better practice is for the deposition to go forward to determine how much is able to be covered in the seven hours and, then, if additional time is needed, for counsel to stipulate to extend the deposition for a specific additional time period" or, if necessary, seek court intervention

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Cnty. of San Diego

directing the parties to proceed with the deposition, and stating that the court will not intervene unless the parties are unable to stipulate to any additional time that may be needed

Summary of this case from Schmidt v. Levi Strauss Co.

directing the parties to proceed with the deposition, and stating that the court will not intervene unless the parties are unable to stipulate to any additional time that may be needed

Summary of this case from SANTANA ROW HOTEL PARTNERS v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO
Case details for

Malec v. Trustees of Boston College

Case Details

Full title:NICOLE MALEC, Plaintiff, v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE, YOSHIO SAITO…

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Jul 8, 2002

Citations

208 F.R.D. 23 (D. Mass. 2002)

Citing Cases

In re TelexFree Sec. Litig.

There is support for Plaintiff's position. In Malec v. Trs. of Boston Coll., 208 F.R.D. 23 (D. Mass.…

Spear v. Fenkell

It is not out of the question that more than 1 day of testimony from Ms. Spear might be necessary, but I…